Is GMO food Safe?

Techniques learned through research in molecular
biology have been used to insert foreign genes into food crops. Are
these genetically modified crops safe to eat?

Rich Deem

Introduction

The safety of genetically modified (GM) foods has been decried by many from
the nutritional health community. One article, entitled, "Genetically Modified
Foods Pose Huge Health Risk" claims that thousands of animals fed
genetically-modified organisms (GMO) have died and that "post mortems showed
severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver."1
This same article claims "that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a
major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans."1
The controversy came to a head in November, 2012 in California with a vote on
a proposition, which would have required labeling of GMO food. The proposition
was sponsored by the members of the organic food industry and trial lawyers,
who would have benefited by suing small businesses who failed to comply with
the extensive labeling requirements. Although the proposition failed, the
so-called dangers posed by genetically modified food were placed before the
voters during the extensive advertising campaigns. It is estimated that 50-70%
of all food consumed in the United States contains at least some components
that come from genetically modified crops. This page represents an
unbiased analysis of the risks and benefits of producing and consuming genetically
modified organisms.

What are GMO?

Although human beings have been modifying the genetics of plants and
animals for thousands of years through selective breeding, genetic
modification, as now applied, refers to the introduction of specific
foreign genes into an organism's genome through the techniques of
molecular biology. Genetic engineering of organisms began in earnest in
the 1970s with the ability of scientists to clone genes and insert them
in bacteria. Such "transgenic" organisms could be made to produce the
gene products of the inserted gene, allowing scientists to produce drugs
such as human
insulin and other biochemical products with ease. Soon after, scientists
were inserting genes into mouse embryos to produce transgenic animals
for research. Other molecular biology techniques allowed scientists to
"knockout" genes of interest to see what effect their removal had upon
specific disease processes. In our laboratory, we use cloning and
genetic engineering to produce both transgenic and knockout mouse models to
study inflammatory bowel diseases. Obviously, not all genetic
modification of organisms is bad, since these GMOs have led to
breakthroughs in medical research.

Genetically modified crops

Food crops have been genetically modified for several reasons—most
of which produce a financial benefit to farmers and the chemical
companies that produce the GMOs. In nearly all cases, these benefits are
achieved indirectly by increasing crop yields through resistance to
diseases and pests or by allowing reduced use of herbicides to control
weeds and unwanted plant growth. Monsanto has produced "Roundup Ready"
seeds whose plants are resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup
consists of glyphosate, which kills plants by interfering with the
shikimate
pathway (which produces aromatic amino acids) in plants. Since animals
don't posses the
shikimate pathway, but get aromatic amino acids from their diet,
Roundup is not toxic to human beings. A favorite gene to incorporate
into plants to confer pest resistance is the bacterial toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This toxin binds to a specific receptor
on the surface of midgut epithelial cells of certain orders of insects,
disrupting digestion and killing the pest. Since this receptor is not
found in vertebrates, such as humans, it is non-toxic, so it produces no
harm. The advantage of incorporating Bt toxin into the plant is that
only pests who eat the crops are killed. Since the 1930s, Bt toxin has
been used as an insecticide, being sprayed on plants, killing pests
along with beneficial insects that accidentally ingest the toxin.

In addition to pest and herbicide resistance, scientists have altered
plant-produced oils to produce healthier products, added vitamin A to
rice ("golden rice"), and conferred resistance to viral attack. Genetic
engineering of papaya saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from extinction
due to infection with Ringspot virus in 1998.2

To date, several crops have been genetically modified, a few of which
now account for the vast majority of those crops now cultivated in the United
States. In the United States, nearly all corn, soybean and cotton crops are now genetically modified.
In Canada, nearly all rapeseed (canola) is genetically modified. Other genetically modified crops include:

Genetically modified animals

Enviropig is a genetically modified pig that produces the enzyme
phytase, which allows the pig to digest phytic acid, which contains a
form of phosphorus that is normally indigestible.4 This results in
reduced phosphorus being released into the environment, reducing
pollution of waterways. Another novel idea in genetic engineering was
the cloning of pigs that were rich in omega-3 fatty acids.5 With this GM
pig, you could get healthy omega-3 fatty acids by eating bacon, instead
of smelly fish. Genetic engineering has been used to alter cows
so that they produce milk that is free of β-lactoglobulin
(which many people are allergic to) and high in casein protein.6 Other
cows have been genetically modified to produce milk that is nearly
identical with human milk,7 which would
allow mothers who cannot nurse the
opportunity to give their infants milk that is more "natural" than
standard baby formula. As of this writing, none of these innovations
have been approved for human consumption.

Frankenfish!

Genetically modified crops have produced not nearly the amount of
controversy as the first animal genetically modified for human
consumption. Affectionately referred to as "Frankenfish," this
genetically modified AquAdvantage salmon was so controversial that the
FDA failed to take action on its approval for market in 2010, requiring
more study.8
What did AquaBounty do that was so controversial? They took
an Atlantic salmon (which are already extensively grown in farms) and
added a growth hormone regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and
a promoter gene from an ocean pout. So, instead of growing only during
warmer months, the AquAdvantage salmon will grow all year long,
achieving maturity in about half the time as wild Atlantic salmon. Although
these genetically modified salmon could probably out-compete wild salmon because
of their high growth rate, they are provided by AquaBounty as sterile females, to prevent
breeding, should they be inadvertently released into the wild. Despite
these precautions, activist groups, along with the Alaska salmon fishing
lobby, convinced the FDA not to approve AquaBounty's application. From a
scientific perspective, the genes inserted into the genetically modified
salmon are naturally-occurring, and have been eaten in their respective
host species without incident. The FDA finally released the
environmental report for AquAdvantage salmon immediately before
Christmas, 2012, although the report itself was dated May, 2012.

GM pets/flowers

Fluorescent proteins have been used for years in molecular biology
research to report expression of genes to which it is attached. When the
gene of interest is transcribed, the fluorescent protein is also
expressed, which shows up as a fluorescent glow that can be measured.
Most of these fluorescent proteins have been isolated from species of
jellyfish. Entrepreneurs have incorporated different fluorescent protein
into zebrafish and tetras to create transgenic pets. These "Glofish" have been
marketed as unique tropical fish, notable for their stunning fluorescent
colors.9 In addition to the stunning
colors of zebrafish, scientists have genetically engineered colors in
flowers that aren't found in nature. Examples include the Blue Rose
Applause and Moonshade Carnation.

Can GMO foods harm people?

For a number of GM crops, the genes/gene products never enter the
food supply, since those parts of the plants are removed during
processing. For example, sugar from GM sugar beets is chemically
identical to non-GM sugar. Likewise, oils purified from GM canola,
soybean, cottonseed, and corn is identical to non-GM oils. Much of the corn crop is
dedicated to generating ethanol, which, of course, is identical to
non-GM ethanol. It has not been noted that ethanol from GM corn adversely
affect automobile performance compared to non-GM ethanol. Genetically modified Bt
cotton is worn, rather than ingested, and there have been no reports of
adverse effects of wearing GM clothing. For GM crops in which
whole plant cells are ingested, the genes and gene products are
usually destroyed through digestion in the stomach and small intestine.10 So, it
is unlikely, even in theory, that eating GM crops can harm human beings.

GMO concerns and studies

Concerns over the safety of genetically modified organisms extends
across much more than just food safety. Supporters of the environmental
movement are concerned that GMO might escape into the wild and alter
ecosystems. Another concern is that genetically modified genes might
experience horizontal gene transfer through bacterial or viral vectors and
end up in organisms for which they were never intended. These issues are
dealt with below.

Food safety

In the United States all applications for the approval of GMO
released for public consumption are handled by the FDA. Development and
testing of a new GM crop typically requires 8 to 12 years, including
more than 4 years of safety and environmental testing, before regulatory
approval and commercial release.11

No particular food is safe to eat for all human beings, since about
6% of the human population has allergies to one or more food groups. FDA
testing for food allergies to GM foods is identical to similar testing
for non-GM foods. Any gene products found in GM food that is not
found in non-GM food must have its structure analyzed to determine if it
matches any known allergen (containing a sequence greater than 35%
identical to any 80-amino-acid segment of known allergens, where an
average protein contains hundreds of amino acids). In nearly all
instances, commonly inserted genes would never be expected to be similar
to food allergens. However, if a match were found, the protein would
have to be tested with sera from allergy sufferers to establish allergenicity. A GM product that exhibits "substantial equivalence" to
the non-GM variety is declared to be safe. There is no published
evidence of allergic reactions to any GM protein or any adverse human
health reactions associated with consumption of foods from GM crops
since the introduction of GM products into the food supply.11
A test of the allergenicity of GM vs. non-GM soybeans was done in 2006,
and scientists found no differences in the reactions of sera from
allergy sufferers.12

structure of duodenal and colonic epithelium and coliform
bacterial populations

mice

No differences in structure or flora, some mucin differences

Although there appear to be conflicting data about the safety of GM
food, all the negative studies have come from one laboratory headed by
Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France. The
conclusions of those studies have been refuted by numerous scientists
who have noted flaws in study designs and statistical evaluations.36
In addition, Séralini is funded by the Committee for Research and
Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, in Paris, France, which
opposes genetic engineering of crops.

Environmental concerns

Realistic environmental concerns over GM crops fall into two
categories; (1) the development of resistance in Bt crop target
organisms and (2) tolerance in weeds to complementary herbicides used in
HT crops.37
Although concerns have been raised over the use of large-scale
mono-crops, these concerns are not specific to GM modified crops, but
apply to corporate farming in general. None
of the crops in question are hardy enough to escape into the environment
and compete with indigenous flora.

The development of resistance to Bt toxin by pests was anticipated
prior to commercialization of those crops. For this reason, Many crops
include multiple variations of the Bt toxin in their products. In
addition, all farms using GM Bt crops must plant a small percentage of
corresponding non-GM crop in the vicinity. In theory, these non-GM crops
would attract pests, which would reproduce abundantly, overwhelming the
gene pool of any potential Bt-resistant mutants.

Another question is whether GM crops containing Bt toxin affect
insect predators who feed on pests that eat GM crops. For most studies,
ingestion of pests that eat GM crops does not negatively impact predator
insect species.38 However, some predator species have been negatively
impacted, although those impacts were probably less than they would have
been with conventional crops in which pesticides were used
indiscriminately.

Gene flow and gene transfer

Concern has been raised about genetic mixing of GM crop genes with
wild, related species. For most crops, no sufficiently-related natural
species still exist. However, crops related to the Brassica and Beta
species (rapeseed, aka canola, and sugar beets) do have wild relatives.
In 1999 scientists showed in the lab that pollen from rapeseed could fertilize wild
turnip to produce viable seeds.39 However,
the transfer of GM genes into wild populations has never been
demonstrated to have occurred in nature.

Unintended genetic changes

Although the genes being introduced into plants are highly
characterized and defined, the process of gene insertion and tissue
culture can result in unintended genetic changes. Plants are transformed
by culturing individual cells in tissue culture and inserting the
desired trait into the DNA by one of several methods. The most common is through
infection with genetically transformed Agrobacterium tumefaciens,
a bacterium that infects plants. Through the infection process, the
desired trait is incorporated into the host DNA. A second mechanism is
through particle acceleration, which physically pushes small particles
into the plant cell nucleus where the gene is incorporated. The desired
genes are usually linked to specific antibiotic resistance genes so that
transformed plant cells can be selected through resistance to
antibiotics that are included in the tissue culture medium. The
mechanism by which the foreign genes are incorporated into the host
genome are not well understood. However, since much of the eukaryotic
genomes consist of non-critical DNA segments, random incorporation does
not usually lead to adverse effects on the host. Cells in which the
foreign genes are incorporated into critical genes will tend to produce a
lethal mutation that prevents the cell from growing. However, it is
theoretically possible that random incorporation of a GM gene could lead to disregulation of a particular gene, which could have unintended
consequences. However, such events would be expected to be very rare.
With the advances in gene array technology, scientists can now
explicitly examine gene expression from all the genes in GM vs. non-GM
crop species. The results of numerous studies show that virtually all
gene expression is identical between GM and non-GM plants.40 In fact,
studies found greater differences in gene and protein expression as a
result of crop differences between farms than differences between GM and
non-GM crops.40 However, the
act of cloning individual plant cells in tissue culture probably results
in more changes to the genome than the actual genetic transformation
itself.41 In order to minimize these differences, once the desired trait
is selected, the new variety is conventionally back-crossed with normal
plants to produce a GM variety as similar as possible to the non-GM
original. An extensive review of GM-crop risks concluded, "there is no
indication from the molecular characterization of GM plants that the
insertion of GM DNA as such poses a long-term risk due to new mechanisms
of genetic instability or re-arrangements."37

In the last year, a newly invented technology allows scientists to accurate choose where
genes are inserted into the host species. The TagMo process involves
exact chromosome breakage and insertion of genes into the target DNA.42
Once this technique is broadly adapted, unintended genetics changes will
be reduced to virtually zero.

Economic benefits of GMO

The main benefit of GM crops is economics, since the nutritional
component has largely gone unexploited. The political/social climate
surrounding GMO must improve before companies would be willing to invest
money into genetic engineering for enhanced food nutrition. The
economics of GM crops was analyzed in a study of 196 publications
containing 721 entries for the statistical analysis in 2011.43
The meta analysis found that crop yields for GM Bt cotton were up to 50%
higher than conventional cotton (in India). However, yields in developed
countries were only 1-28% higher, since pest management was aggressive
before the introduction of GM cotton. However, reductions in pesticide
costs range from 16% in the USA to about 70% in China. Yield levels of
Bt corn are higher (5%-25%) compared to conventional maize, and along
with lower pesticide costs, results in higher gross margins of 10%-17%
for farmers. For GM soybeans, marginally increased yields and reduced
pesticide costs did not make up for the higher cost of GM seed. In
general, benefits of GM farming are higher in developing countries
compared with developed countries. Overall, it was estimated that GM
crops benefit farmers by $7 billion per year, worldwide.43

Food labeling requirements

Countries of the European Union, along with several others (for a
total of 42, as of 2012) require labeling of products containing GM
components.44
No such requirement exists in the United States or Canada. The
requirement for GM labeling of food has resulted in the almost complete
absence of GM food in those countries, mostly due to a perception by
grocery store owners that such foods would not be purchased. However, in
Australia, only 27% of consumers examine food labels to determine if
products contain genetically modified ingredients.45
So, even though
consumers don't have a strong preference against GM food, required
labeling laws have resulted in the virtual elimination of GM products
from countries with such labeling requirements.

Politics of GMO

In general, opponents of GMO are part of the environmental movement,
which largely consist of liberals and members of the left. Frustrated
with the irrationality of GMO opponents, Keith Kloor of
Slate recently wrote an article entitled, "GMO Opponents Are the Climate
Skeptics of the Left." Environmental organizations that have come out against GM
food include
Greenpeace, and the
Sierra Club.
GMO are also opposed by members of the organic food industry, which
stand to gain financially from GMO labeling requirements.

Legal considerations of GMO

All genetically modified organisms contain patented DNA technology. The
licensing terms require that users of the patent (i.e., farmers) not
save any seed from any harvests, but buy licensed seed every year it is
planted. Without such licensing restrictions, patents on genetically
engineered sees would be useless to protect a company's investment in creating
the patent. However, to insure patent protection, GM seed companies are
now producing seed that does not produce viable embryos, preventing the
replanting of harvested seed. Some interesting cases of patent
infringement have resulted from farmers planting unlicensed GM seed.

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

Percy Schmeiser was a canola farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada. In 1997,
Schmeiser sprayed the herbicide RoundUp around telephone poles at the
edge of his farm and discovered that the canola plants survived,
indicating that they were GM canola plants. According to his account, he sprayed an additional 4
acres of the same field and found that 60% of the plants survived the
spraying. At harvest, Schmeiser saved the Roundup-resistant seed
separately and the following year intentionally planted an additional 1,000 acres of land
with the saved seed. Even though Schmeiser
did not use the herbicide Roundup on this crop, three courts (including
the Canadian Supreme Court) found him guilty of patent infringement,46
although he never purchased seed from Monsanto or signed their license
agreement. A biased documentary, entitled David vs. Monsanto,based upon the case, went viral. However, the documentary never
stated clearly that Schmeiser intentionally planted 1,000 acres of what
he knew to be GM canola seed, but suggested that the seed came from
wind-borne "contamination." I am no farmer, but it would seem extremely
unlikely that a field could become 60% contaminated with seed blown in
from an adjacent farm. If this were true, then a farmer would never have
to plant seed at all, but just wait for the wind to blow it into your
field to get a crop. Not!!! Primarily as a result of David vs. Monsanto,
Monsanto became an evil corporation in the eyes of GMO opponents.

Monsanto's Technology Agreement allows farmers to sell their
genetically-modified crops to commodity markets, which are allowed to
sell those seeds as a commodity, for anything but planting. So, Vernon
Bowman, after planting Roundup Ready soybean seed from Monsanto, decided
to obtain second season crop seed from the commodity market, saving
money on seed costs and avoiding the licensing fee. Since 94% of the
soybean market in the U.S. uses Roundup Ready soybeans, the seed from the commodity
market was probably nearly pure GM seed. Bowman planted the seed from
the commodity market and harvested the seed from that crop and
saved it for next season's planting. Then, amazingly, Bowman
wrote Monsanto, telling them exactly what he had done! Monsanto, of
course, sued Bowman, since he had violated the terms of the license
agreement, which prevented the planting of patented seed from previous
harvests. Monsanto alleged that Bowman, in planting the seed from the
commodity market violated the terms of the license agreement. A judge
agreed with Monsanto, along with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit.47
The case was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which ruled in favor of Monsanto.

About the author

Rich Deem is the founder and main contributor of
Evidence for God from Science, and is employed full-time as a scientist in
molecular biology research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Mr. Deem has
no ties to either the organic food industry or companies that produce
GMOs, although he does practice organic vegetable gardening as a hobby.

Christianity and GMO

Since this is a Christian website, we usually give the Christian
perspective on issues, even if the issue does not primarily have
spiritual implications. Christianity does not impose dietary
restrictions on its adherents, so there is no directive against eating any
particular kind of food, although gluttony is unacceptable.48
Since Christianity came from Judaism, there was
some controversy in the early church about those who practiced the
Judaic food laws and those who didn't. The apostle Paul said that as
long as a person gave thanks to God, it didn't matter what he ate (Romans 14:5-6).49
Therefore the Christian is not restricted in regard to food he consumes.

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in
regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a
Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the
substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Some Christians say that by creating GMOs, scientists are "playing
God."50
However, human beings have been breeding plants for thousands of years,
so that the crops we now grow are quite different from those that God
originally created. Some Christians oppose GM foods not on the basis
of morality, but on a faulty understanding of the science behind it.51

Since Judaism does adhere to a strict dietary code, genetic
modification of food is a potential issue. However, Orthodox Rabbis have
ruled that genetic modification of
food was irrelevant to the Jewish dietary laws.

Conclusion

If one does an Internet search for the safety of genetically modified
food, he will find that the vast majority of articles oppose such food,
claiming it is unsafe to eat. As an extension of liberal
environmentalism and the health food industry, GMO opposition has taken
on a life of its own, complete with its own form of junk science and
scare tactics. Real science has shown that genetic modification of crops
increases productivity, reduces the use of pesticides and herbicides,
reducing fuel use and the carbon footprint of farming. Besides helping
the farmer, genetic engineering has the potential to help the
environment and make food more healthy to eat. However, most of these
innovations have not been adopted because of widespread, irrational
opposition. Numerous scientific studies have shown that food containing
ingredients from genetically modified organisms is as safe to eat as
conventional food. Ultimately, over 70% of food in the average grocery
store in the USA contains ingredients from GMO. Since the longevity of
Americans has increased during the last 16 years following the
introduction of GMO into the American diet, one would have to conclude
that GM food has no negative impact on the health of the average
American.

Other Resources

Dan Story, author of the book,
Should Christians be Environmentalists?,
is a former agnostic, turned Christian. Soon after becoming a Christian,
Story felt compelled to write Christian apologetics materials. Some
thirty years later Story has written his first work on environmentalism
from a Christian perspective. It is probably good Story took so much
time to get back to his environmentalist past, since he is now firmly
grounded in biblical theology, so that he handles the topic with the
skill of a seasoned apologist. The book is not so much a to-do list of
things Christians can do to care for God's creation as it is an
apologetic to the Church to become leaders in the field of creation
care. Story's target audience is Bible-believing Christians, since there
is a biblical emphasis throughout the book.
More...

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers
every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who
regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to
the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the
Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:5-6)

Greg Ciola. 2005. Beware of the Coming Food Apocalypse! GMOs:
They're Playing God and Shoving It Down Your Throat!